Comparative study of separation between<i>ex vivo</i>prostatic malignant and benign tissue using electrical impedance spectroscopy and electrical impedance tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Currently no efficient and reliable technique exists to routinely assess surgical margins during a radical prostatectomy. Electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) has been reported as a potential technique to provide surgeons with real-time intraoperative margin assessment. In addition to providing a quantified measure of margin status, a co-registered electrical impedance tomography (EIT) image presented on a surgeon's workstation could add value to the margin assessment process. APPROACH: To investigate this, we conducted a comparative study between EIS and EIT to evaluate the potential these technologies might have for margin assessment. EIS and EIT data was acquired from ex vivo human prostates using a multi-electrode endoscopic impedance acquisition probe. MAIN RESULTS: EIS and EIT show good predictive performance with a 0.76 and 0.80 area-under-curve (AUC), respectively, when considering discrete frequencies only. A machine learning (ML) algorithm is implemented to combine features, which improves the AUCs of EIS and EIT to 0.84 and 0.85, respectively. Single-step EIT takes significantly less time to reconstruct than multi-step EIT, yet provides similarly accurate classification results, making the single-step approach a potential candidate for real-time margin assessment. While the ML-based approach clearly exhibits benefits as compared to the single feature assessment, the decision to use EIS versus EIT is unclear since each approach performs better for different subsets of tissue classifications. SIGNIFICANCE: The results presented in this paper corroborate our previous studies and present the strongest evidence yet that an intraoperative-capable impedance probe can be used to distinguish benign from malignant prostate tissues. An in vivo study with a large cohort will be necessary to definitively determine the preferred approach and to show the clinical effectiveness of using this technology for margin assessment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".